527 ^1^ 

W89 ^^^ . 

HON. GEO. W. WOODWARD 




AM) TIIK 



V 



■^JjvrtV OF COW, 



31808, 



(iViilvinmlcivkl (i\outcp.i in ^C^nuuiDlvanin. 



REVIEW OF HIS«1'KKCH IX IXDEPENDEXCE SQlAKi;, 
PHILADELPHIA, DECESIBER 1:), 1860. 



A TIU'K EXPOSITION ol' IMS PlilNCIPLES ANT) PURPOSES 



WILLIA.M A. COOK. 



CHROMICLE PRINT 



HON. GEO. W. WOODWARD 



AND THE 



.#ttleiiat0i;wl $mit%i m mmmmmm 




EEVIEW OF HIS SPEECH IN INDEPENDENCE SaUARE; 
PHILADELPHIA, DECEMBER 13, I860. 




W 



A TRUE EXPOSITION OF HIS PRINCIPLES AND PURPOSES, 



Bit 



WILLIAM A. COOK. 



CHRONICL.E PRINT 
18G3. 






INTRODUCTORY CORRESPONDENCE. 



Washington, Sept. 16, 1863. * 
WM. A. COOK, ESQ.: 1 1 110 

Dear Sir: — I have read with much pleasure, profit, aud satisfaction, your 
scathing exposition of the course of Judge G. W. Woodard as touching the 
great and vital issues of the day — issues involving the existence of this 
Kepublic. We trust you will gather up from the columns of the Philadel- 
phia Press — where we read it — and place in more convenient form for dis- 
tribution the record of a* man so unfaithful to freedom and at the same time 
so aspiring. Those who intend to vote for Woodward should know just 
what he does believe. They will learn that in your letters. 

Very respectfully, &c., 

D. L. EATON, 

SAM. CALDWELL, 
A. W. KIMMEL, 
M. P. SMITH, 

And others. 



Washington City, D. C, Sept. 16, 1863. 
Maj. D. L. Eaton, S. Caldwell, A. W. Kemmel, and Others : 

Gentlemen: — I have received your note of to-day, requesting me to place 
in a "more convenient form for distribution" the letter which appeared in 
the Press of the 1st inst., addressed to the Hon. George H. Woodward over 
the ?wm de guerreoi " Westmoreland." 

Thanking you for the kind and flattering terms in which you have made 
this request, with the least possible delay I will comply with it. 

It may be proper to state that your opinion respecting the letter coincides 
with that expressed by the distinguished "Editor of the Press'' at the date 
of its publication. This was Bis reference to it : 



'•On our first page we print a letter from one of our ablest citizens in 
regard to the record of Mr. Justice Woodward. The facts it states every 
man should remember. They cannot be contradicted, and their meaning 
cannot be misunderstood. We earnestly endorse the . argurrient of our cor- 
respondent, and would especially recommend it to tlie supporters of Judge 
Woodward. Many of them cannot fail to perceive its force and truth, and 
not a few will be convinced that his election will be injurious .to the liighest 
interests of the country." 

To produce more than this commendatory notice in connection with your 
request, as a justification for the publication of the letter in the present form 
would be useless. 

I have taken, however, the liberty of adding another letter which I have 
recently addressed to Mr. Woodward", and which I trust you will find, in all 
respects, equal to the one which called forth your request. 

If time and other engagements permits, I may add to these letters one or 
two others. 

The fact is, the more thoroughly the principles and opinions of Mr. Wood- 
ward are examined, the more profound becomes the conviction of his unfit- 
ness for the position to which he aspires. 

Earnestly hoping that a significant " defeat " awaits him on the second 
Tuesday of October, and that Pennsylvania will then speak out in no uncer- 
tain tones against the unhallowed rebellion of the South, and those who, 
in the North, " cheer it on " by their voices, pens, and actions, 

I am truly yours, 

WILLIAM A. COOK. 



.1- 



r^rroo 



THE CANVASS FOR GOYEEIXOE. 



THE RECORD OP MR. JUSTICE WOODWARD, AKD AN EXAMINATION 
OF HIS CLAIMS FOR THE GUBERNATORIAL CHAIR. HIS ADVO- 
CACY OF NATIONAL DISRUPTION OR SECESSION, &e 



Hon. Geoi'ge W. Woodward: \ 

Sir :— 

It has been decided by an eminent jurist of 
this country, that "the right to canvass the ; 
claims of candidates for public favor belongs i 
to each citizen." This right, in th(; present ' 
crisis, becomes a duty, which no one, how- : 
ever humble, can innocently disrejrard. I, 
therefore, propose to inquire concerning ' 
your fitness for the position to which you ! 
aspire in Pennsylvayia. In doing this, I ' 
will confine myself, at least tempoiarily, to ' 
:a speech delivered by you at "The Grand '. 
Uuion Demonstration," which took place in ; 
"Independence Sqi;are," Philadelphia, on 
the 13th of December, 1860. To this neither ; 

?ou nor your trained champions can object. \ 
'hat speech was not extemporized. It was 
"re«d," and hence must be regarded as con- : 
taining your matured views and pi-inciplcs. 
That it was "coolly received" )>y your 
auditors, as appears from the fad that it | 
called forth no expression of approval, is 
not suiprising. For carefully prepared as it 
was, it was a very ordinaiy ])r(iductioil. 
Moreover, it was entirely out of place — re- I 
plete with misrein-csentallons — incorrect in j 
its premises and deductions — coarse and un- 
founded in its invective, and sectional and 
unpatriotic in its positions. All this, and ; 
more, I may clearly and briefly ^how. 

In the execution of this purpof-c, I will 
not be influenced to the slightest extent, by 
the appearance of the prefix "Judge" to 
your name, or by the announcement that you 
are " of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. "' 
Positions requiring honor and ability are 
not iiafrcquently rashly or ?<Hwisc?^ bestowed 
on individuals. "The doings ol' Time" 
have convinced many that they greatly erred, 
when they assisted in placing "the judicial 
cnnine" on your athlotic form. Besides, it 
is only when you arc actually invented Avith 
the ermine, wlitni you are "mounted ujxm 
your tripod," that you can expect especial 
deference, or claim peculiar courtesies. C)n 
all other occasitms, you arc only George W. 
Woodward. So I shall regard you. And, 
first, I will refer to the partwhicli you acted 
in "the UnioE Demonstration." 



How it happened that you were an actor 
at all in that "great assembly of freemen," 
it would be useless to determine. Perhaps, 
it was the result of "factional intrigues," 
with which you are not unfamiliar, or per-- 
haps your appearance was attributable 
to mistaken conceptions of your character 
and abilities. Be this as it may, you parti- 
cipated in the proceedings of the demonstra- 
tion. But how, sir? As an enlightened 
statesman ? As a pure patriot ? As a mag- 
nanimous and wise councellor? "No, sir; 
but as an artful demagogue — as a heated par- 
tisan. What a manifest impropriety Avas 
there in this! The nation Avas disturbed in 
her long repose of qiiiet and security. Hearts 
were biflamed — minds excited. The demon 
of discord Avas abroad in the land. The 
hands of conspirators rudely grasped "the 
grand old stars and stripes." The eyes of 
traitors rested on the marble of the nation's 
capitol; her iuA'aluable and sacred institu- 
tions AA'ere impelled. 

Men of almost every political sentiment 
wej-e gathered "in the City of Brotherly 
Love," neai* the spot AA'hich the deliberation 
of Washington and JetTcrson and Franklin 
andttheiv compeers had halloAved and conse- 
crated, to do Avhat they could to alla)^ strife 
and to i)reserve unshattered the great edifice 
of our liberties. Hoav important Avas the 
assemblage ! IIoav thrilling AvaS the occa- 
sion ! Hoav sacved the hour ! Then, if ever, 
partisan aims siioald have been forgotten, 
and factional passions should have slum- 
bered peacefully as the unrufl;led billoAVS of 
ocean. So others felt, so others acted. It 
Avas, hoAvever, olherAvise Avith you. 
, Their visions extended bej'ond their par- 
ties, and embraced the Avbole nation.- Yours 
Avas confined to the narroAv and pitiable limits 
of your "political sect." 

They stood up in the purity and dignity 
of patriots. 

You in the form and garlj of a cabaMst. 

Their Avords Avere mild and conciliatory — 
yours harsh and denunciatory. Most infeli- 
citous and ill-timed Avasyour'" read" speech! 
It Avas so regarded at the time. For it must 
have been in reference to it and you, that the 
President of Select Council subsequently ex- 



claimed, " tlie people, no matter to what par- 
ticular household they belong, forgetting all 
party ties, and all questions of mere political 
expediency, animated alone by love for their 
country, have broken the green withes with 
which political tricksters, of whatever name, 
have sought to bind them, and, to-day, the 
people, one great, united people, animated 
by a common heart, and moving with an 
equal tread, keep step to the music of the 
Union." This utterance of Mr. Cuyler was 
received with significant approval, with 
'''' prolonged and vocifcrovs applause,'''' and if 
3'our sensibilities had not been peculiarly 
scared, this "applause" Avould have crim- 
soned your cheeks and fallen with stinging 
reproach upon your heart. It was enough, 
however, that j'ou were thus directly and 
promptly rebuked. 

Not content with marring the sacredness 
and disturbing the harmony of the demon- 
stration with the aspect, voice, and opinions 
of an abject partisan, you most glaringly 
misrepresented the principles and designs of 
the then "President elect." This you did 
by a false reference to a speech made by him 
at Springfield, Illinois, June 17, 1858, insist- 
ing that he designed to "divest the people 
of the South of their 'peculiar propriety' and 
to revolutionize as respects it their ' habits,' 
' social condition,' " etc. At the same time 
you passed by all his subsequent speeches, 
in which his policy and views were clearly 
presented. These were published in Colum- 
bus, Ohio, in 1860, by Follett, Foster & Co., 
in a volume styled "Political Debates, ete." 
In several of them he explicitely stated fllat 
he had no intention to make war "on T,he 
institutions of the South." On the 10th of 
Jul}', 1858, at Chicago, he said : " I have 
said a himdred times, and I have now no in- 
clination to take it back, that I believe there 
is no right, and ought to be no inclination 
in the people of the free States, to enter into 
the slave States and interfere with the ques- 
tion of slavery at all." And he then added: 
'■'■And wlien it is said that I am in favor of in- 
terfering iciih slavery where it exists, I know it 
is unwarranted by anything I have ever inten- 
ded, and, as I believe, by anything I have ever 
SAID. Jf, by any means, IJuive ever used lan- 
guage ichicik could fairly be construed (as, 
Jiowever, I believe I neve)' have,) I now correct 
it:' 

At Quiucy, Illinois, on the loth of Octo- 
ber of 1858, he repeated the same sentiments, 
and said that all he wished, "wi relation to 
the institution of slavery,''' was to Jiave it 
'■'■placed upon the basis that our fathers placed 
it upon:' These views he subsequently, in 
September 1859, uttered at Columbus, Ohio, 
and ill Cincinnati. In the latter place he 
said, "I assure you that I never had any 
purpose, in any way, of interfering with the 



institution of slavery where it exists." * * 
» * * * * II J tiiink slaveiy is wrong 
morally and politically. I desire that it 
should be no turther spread in these United 
States, and I should not object if it should 
gradually terminate in the whole Union." 
******* And, addressing liis 
'.'Democratic slaveholding Kentucky hear- 
ers," he used this language — viz.: * * * 
* * * * u J ^-^Yi tell you, so far as I am 
authorized to speak for the opposition, what 
we mean to do with you. We mean to treat 
you, as near as we possibly can, as Washing- 
ton, Jefferson, and Madison treated 3'ou. We 
mean to leave you alone, and in no way to 
interfere Avith your fnstitution ; to abide by 
all and every compromise of tlte Constitu- 
tion,'' §T. * * *******■:!• 

And then, turning to his political friends, 
he spoke thus: " I say that we must not in- 
terfere with the institution of slaveiy in the 
States where it exists, because the Constitu- 
tion forbids it, &c. 

"We must not withhold an eflicient fugi- 
tive slave law, because the Constitution re- 
quires us, as I understand it, not to withhold 
such a law. But w*e must i)revent the out- 
spreading of the institution, because neither 
the Constitution nor the general welfare re- 
quires us to extend it. We must prevent the 
revival of the African slave trade, and the en- 
acting by Congress of a Territorial Slave 
Code. We must prevent each of these things 
being done by either Congress or courts. 
The people of these United States are the right- 
ful masters of both Congress and courts, not 
to overthrow the Constitution, but to ovei'throtc 
the men icho p)ervert the Constitution:'' 

Now, why was it that you maintained a pro- 
found silence with regard to all these utter- 
ances ? The answer is obvious. They were 
mild, qonservative, conciliatory, containing, 
in the words of Mr. Lincoln, as found in hjs 
message at the extra session of Congress in 
July, 1861, "repeated pledge against any 
disturbance to any of the people or anj' of 
their rights." It did not, therefore, com- 
port with your object, to allude to them. 
You had determiued to maintain that he and 
the Republican party were resjjonsible for the 
agitation of the country, and to justify South 
Carolina, Georgia, and their compeers in 
their conspiracy, sedition, and treason. To 
do so, it was necessary for you to indulge in 
the su^gesiio falsi, and also in the suppressio 
Tcri. You found no difficulty in doing both. 
It was done too, not spasmodically, or inci- 
dentally, but with the pen of tranipiil thought, 
and the voice of studied malignity. Yours, 
therefore, was the "deep damning guilt" ol' 
deliberate wrong.* 

*It is not difllcult to conjecture what yonr reply to aU 
this ■will be. You will exclaim with an air of triumph, 
"Is not Mr. Liacoln and lii« party in favor of coercion ; 



Having thus basely concealed and perver- 
ted the views of the "President elect," and 
the original aims of "vast masses of the 
Northern people, "you proceeded to state that 
"the South seems inclined to accept the 
judgment." "Everywhere in the South the 
people are begining to look out for the means 
of self-defence. Could it be expected that 
they would be indifferent to such events as 
have occurred ? That they would be idle and 
see measures concerted and carried forward 
for the annihilation sooner or later of her 
property in slaves ? Such expectations, if 
indulged, are not reasonable. The law of self- 
defence includes the right oi' property as well 
as of person ; and it appears to me that there 
must be a time in the pi'or/ress of this conflict, 
if it be indeed irrepressible,* when slavehol- 
ders may lawfully fall back on their natural 
rights, and emjyloy, in defence of their slave 
property wlmtever means of protection tliey 
possess or can command.'''' 

I cannot dwell on all the points of this 
extract. "What, sir, do you maintain in it V 
That the people of the South, as rational be- 
ings, could not be "idle," or, in other words, 
inactive or dilatory, as to their "means of 
self-defence," etc., preparation for their 
enormous rebellion. That the seizure of our 
custom houses, arsenals, garrisons, and forts 
under the administration of the docile and 
peaceful "traitor of Wheatland" was right? 
That tlie transportation of arms and ammuni- 
tion to tlie South, the scattering of our troops 
by Floyd, and his attempts to remove the 
guns of the arsenal at Pittsburg -syere right ! 
That the dispersion of our vessels of war, 
and of our seamen by Toucey, was right ! 



of the subjugation of those in rebellion against the 
Government ; of the Emancipation Proplaination ; of 
arming the negroes? " etc. It is true that Mr. Liucoln 
approves of all these things. So does the Kcpublicau 
party. So do large numbers of pure and noble Demo- 
crats. With united hearts and voices they declare, in 
direct antagonism to your views and wishes, that "The 
Union must be preserved ; the rebellion must be put 
down, and that, in the accomplishment of the.se ends, 
all the means should be employed which the civiliza- 
tion of the age or the laws of modern warfare will per- 
mit." But this has nothing whatever to do with your 
misrepresentations of Mr. Lincoln and his friend in In- 
dependence s<inare, I'hiladelphia, in December, 1800. 
It in no way ullects or modifies the sentiments which 
he then held, and which you garbled and pcvverted. 
It was his peace policy which you were considering. 
His war policy, incipient or ultimate, was not then an- 
nounced, or tlio subject of consideration. In fact, he 
then had none; for war, although threatened, had not 
been inaugurated. To-day, however, he has a war 
policy, which you do, which you may assail, but 
whicli you cannot impair or overthrow. Tlie best nien 
of the nation sanction it ; the worst men of the nation 
oppose it. 

The fallacy and weakness of your opposition may in 
due time be shown. In the meantime you must remain 
a "convicted libeller,"' and exposed calumniator. 

*you will observe that I attach no importance to 
the words, "If it be indeed irrepressible."' It is true 
they arc "conditional words, but they are not con- 
troling words. They do not modify or niter the propo- 



That the resignation of general and field 
and line officers was right ! That the plun- 
der of our treasury was right ! That 'the 
violation of the most solemn oaths of fealty 
to the National Government, by Davis and 
Breckinridge, and their associates was right! 
In short, that all of the nefarious acts of the 
"vilest traitors that ever cursed God'searth" 
were right ! They could not be "indifferent." 
They could not be ' ' idle. ' ' As intelligent crea- 
tures they were required to act as they did. 

But, sir, upon what did you rest this infa- 
mous defence, this monstrous plea ? Upon 
two allegations. First, that the slave pro- 
perty of the South was endangered, and 
would sooner or later be annihilated by Re- 
publican vandalism. But not a word, not 
an act of that party did you, or could you 
produce to support your position. It was 
wholly "a fancy sketch. " It was without 
even the applausibility of a dignified conjec- 
ture. Let Barnwell Rhett, of South Caro- 
lina, Hon. A. H. Stephens, Vice President 
of "the Southern Confederacy," and its 
Commissioners to Great Britain, determine 
this point. In the South Carolina State 
Convention, in the latter part of 18G0 in dis- 
cussing her " Declaration of Grievance," Mr. 
Rhett said : " The secession of South Caro- 
lina is not an event of a day. It is not any- 
ihiny produced by Mr. Lincohi's election, or 
by tlie non-execution of the fugitive-slave law. 
It has been a matter which has been gather- 
ing head for thirty years." lAnnual Cyclo- 
padia, 18G1, p. 122.] This is brief, but de- 
u^oustrative. Mr. Stephens, in his speech in 
t*e Georgia State Convention, in November, 
18G0, spoke thus : 



fiition that in defence of her slave property, the South 
has the right to dismember or destroy the Federal 
Government. Correctly considered, this is an abstract 
proposition, resting ultimately on an assumed defensive 
right of property," and not on any incidental occur- 
rence, adventitious circumstances, or extraneous phys- 
ical facts or moral truths. 

Moreover, thenileofcrlticismjs this : "In ascertain- 
ing the opinion of a speaker or writer, consider all 
I which he says on the same siibject, whetlier in the 
I same connection or otherwise." Doing this there can 
be no doubt as to your views. For in the progress of 
your speech you referred to tho "several States propo- 
I sing to "retire from the Confederacy." "South Carolina 
going out peaceably." These expressions clearly imply 
that in your judgment the right to retire, to go out 
jieaceably existed. 

But if this were otherwise, if the utmost force, "the 
widest sweep" be given to the words, "If it indeed be 
irrepressible," they would only make your proposition 
this: unless the irrepressible conflict; (i. e-.) all op- 
pnsition, mental as well as moral to the designs and 
principles of the Southern slaveholders be suppressed 
in thfe North, they have a right to overthrow the Na- 
tional Government, or withdraw from it. In this form 
it carries with it the entire theory of disruption and 
Secession; and moreover, as will be fully shown in my 
next letter, requires the Nationalization of Slavery, and 
the suppression in the North of the liberty of the press 
and speech. 

This is indeed perhaps the mo.st objectionable, the 
most monstrous form of your proposition. 



" Pause, I entreat you, and consuler for a ' 
moment what reasons you can <;ive that will 
even satisfy yourselves in calmer moments. 
What reasons can you give to your fellow- 
citizens in the calamity that it will bring 
upon us ? What reasons can you give U) the , 
nations of the earth to justify it — (seces- 
sion '?) They will be tlie calm and dclibor- 
ate judges in the case. And to what cause, ! 
or one overt act, can you name or point on 
which to rest the plea of justification V What 
right has the North assailed ? What inter- 
est of the South has been invaded ? What 
justice has been denied ? And what claim, 
founded in justice and right, has been with- 
held V Can either of you to-day name one 
governmental act of wrong deliberately and 
purposely done by the Government of Wash- 
ington of which the South has a right to 
complain? I challenge the answer." | 

Still more direct, and, if possible, still more i 
cogent, is the letter of the Commissioners to 
the British Government, dated 14th August, 
1851. In it they say: 

'■'■ It was from no fear that the slaves %oould 
be liberated that secession took place. The very 
party in power has proposed to guarantee 
slavery forever in the States, if the South 
would but remain in the Union. Mr. Lin- 
coln's Message proposes no freedmn to the 
slave, but announces subjection of his owner 
to ftie Union — in other words, to the will of 
the North. Even after the battle of Bull 
Run, both branches of the Congress at Wash- 
ing^on passed resolutions that the war is only 
waged in order to uphold that (pro-slavery) 
Constitution and to enforce the laws, (many 
of them pro-slavery,) and out of 172 votes 
in the lower House, they received all but 
two, and in the Senate all but one. 
"WM. L. YANCEY, 
"P. S. ROUST, 
"A. DUDLEY MANN, 

"Southern Commissioners to Europe." 
— (Appleton's Encyclopjedia, etc.) 

How conclusive is this ! Superior to you 
in candor and truthfulness, these representa- 
tive men "of the South" utterly sweep 
away the first allegation or ground of your 
defence of the rebellion. It is ever thus that 

"No falsehood can endure 

Touch of truth, but returns 
Offeree to its owu likeness." 

But as to your next ground. It was made 
up of two parts. 1st. You contend that in 
defence of their " slave property," the South 
had a right "to fall back on the law of na- 
ture. That is, to disintegrate, to dissolve the 
National Government. It was not simply 
an act of secession which you justified. It 
was more ; it was revolution ; it was des- 
truction. You went even beyond the doc- 
trine of Calhoun. In his letter to Hon. Wm. 
Smith, ("Extra Billy,") of Virginia, he 



says: "The right of revolution can be re- 
sorted to rightfully only where govern- 
ment \\a.v, failed in the great object for which 
it was' ordained — the security and happiness 
of the people ; and tlwn only wJten no other 
remedy can be applied.'''' — (Clugkcy's Politi- 
cal Text Book, p. 720.) 

These conditions, important and control- 
ling, as they were in the opinion of "the 
grc-iit nullificr," you omitted, or more prop- 
erly, rejected. And imitating the most reck- 
less of "the fire-eaters," you "stepped out" 
on the platform of "an absolute dcstruction- 
ist." It is not, however, the first instance 
of others than "fools" rushing in where 
" their masters feared to tread." For prior 
to IHllO few of even the most trucident and 
radical of your faction sustained your theory. 
Even the artful and ignoble Pierce, in his 
annual message of January, 1856, in the 
most direct terms condemns it. He says: 
" Our system affords no justification of revo- 
lutionary acts ; for the constitutional means 
of relieving the people of unjust administra- 
tion and laws, by a change of public agents 
and repeal, are ample and more prompt and 
effective than illegal violence," etc. 

But while your "silly notion" has been 
condemned by Pierce, it has called forth the 
most decided disapproval of America's best 
ami purest statesmen. Douglas has de- 
nounced it. Clay has denounced it, Jackson 
has denounced it. The former, on the 1st of 
May, 1801, in the "great Wigwam" in 
Chicago, when on his way to his home, to 
close liis eyes forever on the scenes of earth, 
cried out to the vast multitude who eagerly 
listened to his last public address, " We can- 
not recognize Secession. Recognize it once, 
and you have not only dissolved Govern- 
ment, but you have destroj'ed social order, 
and upturned the foundations of society. 
You have inaugurated anarchy in its worst 
form, and will .shortly experience all the hor- 
rors of the French revolution. Then we have 
a solemn duty — to maintain the Government. 
The greater our unanimity, the speedier the 
day of peace. We have prejudices to over- 
come from the few short months since of a 
fierce party contest. Yet these must be al- 
layed. Let us lay aside all criminations and 
recriminations as to the origin of these diffi- 
culties. WJien we shall have a country again 
'with the United States flag floating over it, and 
respected on every inch of American soil, it trill 
tlien be time enough to ask who and what 
brought all this njion «s." — (Rebellion 
Record, Vol. I, p. 299.) 

Clay, in his great speech on the Compro- 
mise resolutions, in February, 1850, thus 
spoke: "And, sir, I must take occasion 
here to say that, in my opinion, there is no 
right on the part of any one or more of the 
States to secede from the Union. War and 



8 



dissolution of the Union are identical and 
inevitable, in my opinion. There can be a 
dissolution of the Union only by consent or 
by "war. Consent, no one can anticipate 
from any existing state of things, is likely to 
be given, and war is the only alternative by 
which a dissolution could be accomplished. 
* * * Sir, I have said that I thought 
there was no right on the j)nrt of one or more 
States to secede from the Union. I think so. 
The Constitution of the United States was 
made not merely for the generation that then 
existed, but for posteritj' — unlimited, unde- 
fined, endless, perpetual posterity.. And 
ever}' State that then came into the Union, 
and every State that has since come into the 
Union, came into it binding itself, by indis- 
soluble bands, to remain Avithin the Union 
itself, and to remain within it hy its poster- 
ity forever. Like another of tlie sacred con- 
nections, in private life, it is a marriage 
which no human authority can dissolve or 
divorce the parties from." — (Colton's Last 
Years of Henry Clay, pp. 343, 344.) 

Jackson, in his message on the South Car- 
olina proceedings in 1833, says: "The right 
of the people of a single State to absolve 
themselves at will, and without the consent 
of the other States, from their most solemn 
obligations, and hazard the liberties and 
happiness of tlie millions composing this 
Union, cannot be acknowledged. Such au- 
thority is believed to be utterly repugnant 
both to the principles upon which the Gen- 
eral Government is constituted and to the 
objects which it is expressly formed to attain. " 

To these "masterly opinions" might be 
added those of Madison, Benton, Webster, 
and others no less illustrious. But this is 
unnecessary. It is sufficiently shown that, 
while the second ground of -your vindication 
of the rebellion "appears" clear to you, it 
has been refuted and denounced by the 
purest and best statesmen of America. Do 
not misunderstand me. I do not expect you 
to be in the least influenced by the views of 
men who belonged to the " higher regions 
of politics." But others may be — others 
will be. And with the result I will be fully 
satisfied. But you did not stop with simply 
maintaining the right of secession, or of rev- 
olution on the part of " the slaveholders in" 
defence of '^ their slave property." You 
dared to go further. You afiirmed that this 
alleged "right" might be vindicated or sup- 
ported, not merely according to the laws of 
war — the established rules of civilization — 
but by "whatever means they (the South) 
' possess or can command." 

What, sir, could surpass this in atrocity ? 
Let us look at it. You are a jurist. You 
are, or should have been, well read in the 
jus gentium — the law of nations. Of at least 
its elementary principles jou cannot be pre- 
sumed to have been ignorant. You knew 



that it required parties engaged in either 
foreign or domestic wars to "do as little 
harm" as comported "with their real in- 
terests." And yet discarding this well-estab- 
lished rule — attempting to put back the bene- 
ficent march of the centuries — you dragged 
up "the violent maxims and practices of the 
ancients and usages of the Gothic ages," and 
proclaimed in the noon of the nineteenth 
century, in the centre of civilization, that 
the rebels of America, in the execution of 
their nefarious designs, might properly em- 
ploj' any means within their power ; or, in 
malignity demand, treachery supply, frauds 
secure, desires solicit, or exigencies require. 
Thus sustained and emboldened, Avhat have 
they not done ? They have revelled in false- 
hoods and perjuries. Thousands of the no- 
blest and purest of earth's heroes have they 
maimed and slaughtered. Virtue, in its 
purest forms, and innocence in its most lovely 
garbs, have they insulted and jibed. Age, 
with its feeble steps and dim eyes have they 
crowded to their dungeons, aril loaded Avith 
their fetters. 

In fine, thej^ have acted as if " war was a 
dissolution of all moral 'ties, and a license 
for every kind of disorder and intemper- 
ance." For all this, to no small extent, you 
are responsible. If not wholly the result of 
your teachings, it was entirely in harmony 
with them. And, therefore, from every bat- 
tlefield where the defenders of the " stars and 
stripes" have fallen — from eveiy fireside 
which has lieen agonized and desolated — 
from the caves, and mountains, and gorges 
of Tennessee, where oppressed loyalty has 
fled, and suffered, and died — from the dun- 
geons of Virginia — from the pale cheeks of 
disease — from the gaunt forms of starvation 
— from smoking towns — from sacked cities 
— from blasted fields — from manhood in its 
sternness and sacrifices — from woman's tears 
and sobs, and from childhood's Avails and 
infanc3''s plaintive moans, there come voices 
of cursing and of censure upon your infa- 
mous conduct and sentiments. 

Nor can they be hushed. There is a poetic 
justice in the world. There is an avenging 
Nemesis on the earth. In the Avords of Car- 
lyle, "the unjust thing has no friends in the 
heavens, and a majority against it on the 
earth," and that majority may be the aA'cng- 
ing Deity AvhicliAvill meet you on the second 
Tuesday of October, at the ballot-boxes- in 
Pennsylvania, and hurl you to merrited ob- 
scurity and the ' ' gnawing feast ' ' of disap- 
pointed ambition. ; 

It cannot be that the people of Pennsylva- 
nia will elevate George W. WoodAvard, the 
champion of Avrong, the vindicator of rebel- 
lion, the sympathizer with the South, to the 
Gubernatorial chair ! 

Yours, &c., 

WESTMORELAND. 



THE TRUE VIEWS OF 110^. il W. WOODWARD 

ON SECESSIOK. ETC., STATED. HH CONSIDERS THE GENERAL GOVERN- 
MENT TOO WEAK, AND DESIRES IT STRlCNGTIIENED. HE WISHES 
THE CONSTITUTION AMENDED SO THAT IT SHALL SANC- 
TION SLAVERY ; AND THE LIBEKTY OF THE PRESS 
^ AND SPEECH PUT DOWN IN THE NORTH. 



HOTs. GEO. W. WOODWARD: 

Sir: The ides of October approaiii. It is 
important tluit I make good my promise to ! 
•'come back" to your read speech, and ex- 
amine more of its unpatriotic ntterances and 
pvirposes. 

In view of tlie time which has elapsed 
since tlie publication of my previous letter, 
it may be well to refer briefly to what was ■ 
shown in it. 

These })articalars were established, viz.: ' 
Isl. That you marred the harmony and gran- ' 
deur of the Great Union Demonstration of • 
December 13th, I860, by presenting yourself ' 
at it, in the garb and with the declamation 
and platitudes of a mere partisan. 2d. That 
designedly, and with mnlice prepeme^ you 
misrepresented the views and objects of the 
"President elect,'' and of the Repiiblican 
party. 3d. That you maintained that 
because of the discussion or agitation 
in the North of the subject of Africo- ' 
American Slavery, the States where it ex- 
isted or their people, could not rationally 
do otherwise llian proiwre 1o defend "the 
institution," and to overthrow the Federal 
Government. And 4tli. That you conten- j 
ded in opposition to the wisest and purest of ; 
oiu* statesmen, not only that the slaveholders 
had an absolute or perfect rigid to effect this ' 
overthroM- or disintegration, and that in at- ; 
templing it, they might use without restraint, 
whatever moans they jiosscssed or coidd ■ 
control. 

Now, sir, ii may well l»; ihCiuired, w'heth- | 
er you did not In some importont mode, [ 
(iualify this last and most attrocious, pro- 
position V. Astotmding as it may be, the an- 
swer must be in the negative. It is true, you j 
declared that you did not agree with the ! 
South, that the time had arrived when "the | 
right which vou asserted and vindicated," '< 
>honld be put into full :ind unlimited opera- ; 
lion ; but this did not in any manner effect 
" the right itself." It neither modified nor ; 
retracted what you had assumed concerning , 
it. E.xc( pi as regards the mere incident of 



time it left it intact. And it has been coi- 
rectly observed by one of Europe's ablest 
writers on morals and metaphysics, "that he 
who cleurs a dangerous and alarming theory 
of all enrumlurances to action or harmony 
with it, hut the mere contingency of days or 
months, is justly responsibh- for its results 
"however frightful or repulsive thev mav 
be." 

All tlir guilt, all the ignominy, all the con- 
sequenct s of yow postulate of National 
secessioi: or disruption must therefore adhere 
to you. By no chicaney, by no contor- 
tions, b\ no elTorts can j'ou evade them. 
In vain will you vociferaK; with Lady Mae- 
))eth, "Out. dannied spot, out, I say." 

Trusting that this fact will not soon be 
forgotten, I hasten to notice the "remedy" 
which \i)u offered for the llireatened disrup- 
tion of ihe nation, or the plan which you 
brought forward for the purpose of retaining 
within " the Confeileracy," the several States 
which ill harmony witli your views, you 
mildly stated, " proposed to letire " from it. 

And ^^•hat was j-our remedy or plan f 
That which the organic law of the Nation 
had provided V Far from it; " Punishment 
of treason, and misprison of treason," you 
did not invoke. In no manner did you even 
allude to it.* Claiming to be "a strict con- 
structionist," i)rominently connected with a 
party which has been vociferous and vehe- 
ment in its ])rofessions of respect and attach- 
ment for "the letter" of Ihe Federal Con- 
stitution ; you utterly disregarded the means 

':'rii<' I'liri lit ihf Kramers of the Coiistitutlou was ol>- 
\imHly tll•^. All vlolont Htlunipts in overthrow thr 
Goverui)iei)i 'it to withdraw from it, Nhould tic juhI iiinl 
overt'ouie 1 !■ force, 1)y physical re-sistaiice, or itiiiterial 
Hgeiicien. i)(>fects ctl.<coved in its operations sliould lie 
remedied by peaceiible amendment.-! — throutrli tho wori;- 
iiiifK.of the hoart and raiitd. Tbo idea thiu treason shouM • 
I), 'r'spoiuli d to by " courtly etiqvieite," by propositions 
of "ifontle compromine.' etc., was never eutertaiiu'd 
for a inomont by Wii-^hingtoii. .letferson. Madifou and 
ilieir aBsociates. It oriRiuated wii)> thiw age, and I.- 
fostered exclusively by a faction which has degraded 
and prostitited the venerated term, "Democracy."" 



10 



which its framers had adopted to arrest all 
violent attempts to destroy the Government. 
Nor is this all. In direct violation of both 
the words and spirit of that Constitution 
and the corresponding enactment of 1789, 
approved by Washington, you said, let South 
Carolina, and of consequence, all the States 
which might desire to follow her example, 
" Go out of the Union peaceably if at all." 

In your opinion, it was rigid for these 
States to assail the Nation with unrestrained 
violence, but wrong for her to employ phys- 
ical force and material agencies to repel the 
ferocious assault and to maintain unimpaired 
" the unity which has made us one people." 

Thus, rejecting "as 3^ou did, all "coersive 
measures," what did you propose in lieu 
thereof? Let the following citations from 
your speech respond or determine. 

"Under the amendatory c\?i\\?,& of the Con- 
stitution, Congress is bound to call a general 
convention, on the application of the Legis- 
latures of two-thirds of the States. Our Le- 
gislature will assemble next month. Let us 
petition them to demand the Convention. 
Good examples like bad ones, are conta- 
gious. Perhaps one and another of the 
Northern and Southern States may do the 
like, imtil the requisite number have con- 
curred, and then we will have a National 
Convention to consider the evils and dan- 
gers of the day, and to devise remedies which, 
it may be hoped, shall prove as salutary as 
those of 1787. Have I not a right to say 
that a Government which was all-sufficient 
for the country fifty years ago, is insufficient 
to-day, when every upstart politician can 
stir the people to mutiny against the domes- 
tic institutions of our Southern brethren, 
when the ribald jests of seditious editors 
can sway Legislatures and popular votes. 

The Constitution, which is strong enough 
to govern such men, is too weak to restrain 
us who have out-grown the grave and mo- 
derate wisdom that excited no irrepressible 
conflict between brethren, but taught them 
to dwell in unity. I would make it strong 
enough to restrain the madness of our day." 

" We must arouse ourselves and reassert the 
rights of the slaveholder, and add such guar- 
antees to the Constitution as will protect his 
property from the spoliation of religious 
bigotry and persecution, or else we must 
give up our Constitution and Union." 

These are plain, they admit of no misun- 
derstanding. They disclosed your "remedy" 
to be the amendment or alteration of the 
Federal Constitution, agreeable to the desires, 
objects and demands of the Southern Slave- 
holders. 

This, in fact, you distinctly declared was 
the "alternative" for "a dissolution of the 
Union." Acting upon this fallacious as- 
sumption you suggested two ' ' amendments. ' ' 



These should be fully examined, for they 
are not trivial, not insignificant, but impor- 
tant and radical. 

The first contemplated the suppression of 
the discussion of Slaverj- in the free States ; 
a positive restraint of what you styled "the 
madness of our day," "the ribald jests of 
editors," " scurrillous libels" of campaign 
documents, and mutinous words of ujjstart 
politicians," etc. 

In this however there was nothing pro- 
found. It had not even the attraction of 
noveltry. 

The "most ignoble of mankind," James 
Buchanan, in November, 1850, in response 
to an invitation to attend a meeting in Phil- 
adelphia, said : "Agitation in the North on 
the subject of Southern' Slavery, must be re- 
buked and put down," 

(Horton's Life of Buchanan, p. 377.) 
This is precisely what in less terse and direct 
terms you advocated. For only in the 
"free States," in Maine, New Hampshire, 
Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Con- 
necticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, 
Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, 
loAva, Minnesota, Kansas, Oregon, and Cal- 
ifomia,didyou urge thatthe discussion should 
cease. Above Mason and Dixon's line, you 
were anxious to terminate all "agitation " of 
of the subject of Slaveiy ; to seal, as re- 
spects it, every lip with the stillness of death ; 
and to palsy every pen — no matter how pro- 
found the reasoning, or benevolent the utter- 
ances, or polished and courteous the words 
used might be. u:But below that line, you were 
willing, eager, that "agitation" should pre- 
vail, without any limitations of time, place, 
or manner ; that the alleged benefits and ad- 
vantages of the peculiar institution should 
be freely debated, and be supported by "ri- 
bald jests," by coarse and rancorous in- 
vective, b}' perverted facts, by misquoted 
history, by sophistical argumentation, by 
the sciolism of a weak philosophy, by the 
sanctities and unwarranted teachings of the 
pulpit, bj' the prostituted eloquence of states- 
men, by the ferocity of ruffianism and the 
cruelties and brutalities of mobs. Because 
none of these, rampant and prevalent as they 
had been in the South, did you condemn. 

Standing up, therefore, in " Independence 
Square," in the month of I)ecember,|1860, you 
proclaimed in studied phrases,' that "Arti- 
cle 1st of the addition to the Constitution of 
the United States of America should be 
[ amended so as to allow Congress to abridge 
I the freedom of speech and of the press, as 
j regards the millions of the citizens of the 
1 free States ; or to be more specific, so that 
j it should read, ' Congress shall make no law 
' respecting an establishment of religion, or 
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 
i abridging the freedom of speech or the press,' 



11 



except as regards the subject of involuntary 
Slaverj', -which shall not in any mode, or 
under any circumstances, be discussed in the 
non-slaveholding States, under such penal- 
ties as Congress may provide ; ' or the right 
of tiie people to assemble and petition the 
Government, for a redress of grievances,' on 
all other but the said excepted subject of 
Slavery." The penalties which you wished 
annexed to this astounding amendment by 
Congress for the purpose of its enforcement 
you did not see lit to name. But inasmuch 
as it is clearly established that none inferior 
to personal violence, or exile, or imprison- 
ment, or death,""" would satisfy the owners 
of human chattels, it is to be lairly inferred 
that at the opportune moment you would 
lift up your lofty form aud utter "elocpient 
tones" in advocacy of the.sc. And instead of 
regarding them as "cruel," j'ou would'sus- 
tain them as abstract rights of the South, in 
relation to which they could not be expected 
to be indifferent, and which it would be un- 
just to withhold from them. Because what 
Virgil long since sang continues true : 

" Facilis descensus Averui ; 
Sed revocare i,'radum, .supcra.sriue evadere auras 
Hoc opus, hie labor est. 

And yet, sir, in view of all this, notwith- 
standing your bold and shameless advocacy 
of the destruction of the inalienable right of 
"liberty of thought, speech, and the press," 
you and your party, the very Convention 
which, on the 17th of June ult., nominated 
you as a gindidate for Governor of Penn- 
sylvania, had the almost unparalleled ef- 
frontery, the unrivatled inconsistency to 
"resolve and declare" about a "free press," 
and against what it termed the great crime 
of the arrest and deportation of Clement L. 
Vallandigham, a num who boldly declared 
his sympathy was with the South,! who de- 
veloped the truthfulness of his declaration 
by his persistent hostility in words and ac- 
tions to the National Government, and con- 
ccming whom ei id oinnc genua the gallant 
Major General Burnside said : "They must 
not use license, and plead that they are ex- 
ercising libertj'." 

* " Sbo. 12. If any free persou, by speaking or by 
writing, assert or maintain that persons have not the 
right to hold slaves in this territory, or shall introduce 
into this tprritery, print, publish, write, circulate, or 
cause to he introduced into this territory, written, 
printed, published, or circulated in this territory, any 
book, paper, mai^azine, pamphlet, or circular contain- 
ing any denial of the right of persons to hold slaves in 
this territory, such per.sou shall bo deemed guilty of 
felony, aud punished by imprisonment at hard labor 
for a" term of not less than two years." — (Statutes of 
Kansas Territory, p. 717.) "Let an Abolitionist come 
■within the borders of South (Jaroliua, if wo can catch 
him we will try him." — (Senator Hammond.) 

tSee a pamphlet entitled "The Peace Democ- 
racy uiini Copperheads. Their Record, ' etc. This 
was prepared with great care, is in all respects liable, 
and presents in a condensed forma mass of important 
facts and information. 



And here let it be particularly observed 
that the distinction nuide by General Burn- 
side constitutes the true ditference' between 
you and the Administration. 

It has only endeavored to arrest " an 
abuse of a right — an intemperate, licentious, 
seditious, and riotous disputation" of its 
necessary policy and measures — a mode of 
debate which is c<mdemned by Story, Kent, 
and all tlie great luminaries oi' the American 
as well as English law ; while you have 
"struck" at the right it.self, aimed to sec- 
tionalize it, aud to prevent "the men of the 
North and the West " from examining and 
considering the great subject of human lib- 
erty, — one which has engaged the closest at- 
tention, commanded the severest studies, 
called forth the purest argumentation, pro- 
duced the loftiest oratory, and exhibited to 
the world the most sacred and invincible 
heroism of the centuries. 

But without adding more relative to your 
first amendment, I will glance at your 
" second." 

It was in harmony with the first — an exact 
and philosophical counterpart. 

That was designed to be prohibitory of an 
assumed wrong, this, protective of an as- 
serted right. 

Accordingly you insisted that Slavery 
should receive direct constitutional sanction, 
and be upheld by positive defensive provi- 
sions. 

Exactly what you conceived these should 
be, you artfully refrained from specifically 
indicating. Yet it is not difficult to deter- 
mine what were your views in relation to 
them, because you were prepared, to use 
your own words, "to set the North right " 
with regard to "the peculiar institution," 
and to invest it with whatever protection 
those immediately connected with it might 
deem expedient or necessary. 

Hence, in order to find out the particulars 
which lay unuttered or quiescent, in your 
generalization, it will only be necessary to 
ascerfain what "guarantees" the South re- 
quired ; and this "can be at once done by 
producing a resolution otfcred by .left. Davis 
on the 2i)th of December, 18C0, in the Senate 
of the United States." 

It was in these words, viz: '■'■ Rexolved, 
That it shall be declared, by amendment of 
the Constitution, thai property in slaves, re- 
cognized as such by the local law of any of 
the States of the Union, shall stand on the 
same footing, in all constitutional and fede- 
ral relations, as any other species of property, 
.shall not be subject to be divested or im- 
paired by the local law of any other State, 
either in escape thereto, or of transit or so- 
journ of the owner therein ; and in no case 
"whatever shall such property be subject to 
bo divested or impaired by any legislative 



12 



act of the United States, or of any of the ter- 
ritories thereof." — {Congressional Globe, 3d 
Sess., 3Gth Cong., Part I, p. 190.) 

Fairlj' Analyzed, what did tliis rosolntion 
present as "the entire affirmative claim of 
tlie South V" Manifestlj' these things : 

1. That the Federal Govenmieut should 
determine and maintain tliat mankind could 
be the .subject of the most absolute owner- 
ship ; or in the Avords of Blackstone, "of 
that sole and despotic dominion m hich one 
man claims and exercises over the external 
things of the world in total ejfclusi<m of the 
rights of any other individual in the imi- 
verse." That in this respect it should pro- 
claim that there is no differejice bel ween ne- 
groes, mulattoes, quadroons, and brunettes, 
and hogs, nudes, horses, and oxen I 

2. That as a corollary of this national de- 
termination, and for the purpose of render- 
ing it effectual. Congress should be inhibited 
from passing any enactments hostile to 
"this ownership of slaves," and the Execu- 
tive and Judicial Departments ol the Gene- 
ral Government should be required to sup- 
port all elaijns and desires based on sucli 
ownership. 

3. That all legislation, and whenever re- 
((uisite all judicial decisions of the Northern, 
Middle, and "Western States, should be in 
harmony with this "property theory," and 
that as a consecpience slaveholders should be 
allowed not only "the right of transit," 
with their slaves, through these States, but 
also that of "sojourn" udlihilum. or with- 
out any limitation as to time and manner. 

■L That tlie territories of the Uniied States 
should be oj)en to the indefinite extension of 
slavery, and that hence no action or legisla- 
tion hostile to it, should be allowMl on the 
part (jf the inhabitants thereof; but that on 
the contrary it slioidd iu all respects "bo 
held and defended as otlier property." 

Such, then, were the "amendmi.'nls" de- 
^ manded by .Tetf. Davis a?- the representative 
of the South, and such were the "guaran- 
tees" which you insisted must be ''added" 
It) the Constituticm. 

Additions more fundamental, ehaugcsmorc 
infamous and mnrc directly in aitagouifni 
with the views nf " the founders (f the .lie- 
public" conld not well have been Mtggcsted. 

Madison, sir, "thought it wron^' to admit 
in the Consstitutiou the idea that tliere could 
l>e property in man." 

You, on the eontrarj' considered it wron:^ 
tliat this "idea" in its fnllesi (wtciit, should 
be witidieid from it. 

.^ You insisted that "the peenliHr institit- 
.^.Jjions," with all of its imperious claims, its 
..(uonstrous assumptions, its atlrocious pre- 
tentions, and barherous imnciple> customs 
.ind practices, should be "proni)>tly" en- 
shrined, as an idolized and supreme d<'ih-, 
in the temple of our liberties. 



And to accomplish this nefarious and odi- 
ous pm-pose, it appears you were willing and 
prepared to increase the power of the Gene- 
ral Government "to strengthen it, explicitely 
affirming, that while it "was all sufficient 
for the country fifty years ago, "'it is insuf- 
ficient to-da3'." 

I .But I must not dwell longer on the nature 

I and efi'ects of j^oiu" proposed alterations or 

' " amendments." In these respects they have 

I been sufficiently exposed. 

' There is, however, an aspect in which they 
should be further considered ; or rather 

\ glanced at. It is this: The facts that you 

' suggested tliese amendments, that you advo- 
cated them, and that in order to give them a 
vigorous operation you urged that the func- 
tions of the General Goveniment should be 
increased, establish conclusively the arrant 

! hypocrasy of the jn'otestaticms made in your 
speech " of devotion to the Union as it is,"* 
the flagrant inconsistencj- of the cognate crj' 
ofye^ur followers, "The Constitution as it 
is, and the Union as it was," and the decep- 
tiousness and basenass of their fervid decla- 
mation in relation to "the centralization of 
power in tlie hamls of the Federal Govern- 
ment, its alleged absoiption of State rights, 

I rights, etc. 

The poet Dante, sir, feigns that upon the 

: archway of pandemonium is inscribed, 
" Leave hope behind." It would seem, sir, 
that u])on the arc.-hway of your political sanc- 
tum, and of that of the (»rganizirtion which 
nominated and supports you is inscrfbed, 
" Dro]) conscience, truth, and censistency at 

* Upon concluding this letter, I have seen yours of 

I the 21st jnst. to Rufus E. Sharply, Esq. The facts which 

I have presPuted above, completely refute the asseriiou 

I hat your life ha.!i been spent thus far iu upholding tho 

the Conhlitutiou of the United States as our Father." 

: framed it, the Union they formed, etc. In view of your 

I explicit declaration that the Constitution, which ytas 

strong enough for the fathers was too weak for us — of 

your distinct advocacy of a convention to .amend the 

Federal Constetution, and increase the powers of the 

General Government, etc., this assertion is indeed ex- 

i traordinary '. 

It exhibits a degree of moral depravity — a reckless- 
ness with regard to truth — which .sjoes far to establish 
your unfitness for the position to which you aspire. A 
new ajad cogeut p';.^" i is thus furnished "for your defeat 
at tho ballot boxes il. October. 
The as.serriou that, "so far from over avowing belief 
! ii\ Secession, or favoring recognition of the Southern 
' Confederacy, you are, and always have been, opposed 
] to both, and in favor of suppressing the rebellion by 
I which botli are supported," has been fully answered Iu 
j my previous letter. As will appear by reference to 
i that letter, your st»itemeut is utterly false. 
' Bo not deluded. It is too late, sir, for you lo attempt 
I to establish " a reputation for loyalty. " Prevarication, 
however artful or deliberate, will be useless. It will 
only augment your uliimate ignominy, and convince 
the world afresh- (hat "it is a fearful thing to become 
the defiant idolator of wrong ; because in due time thf 
exaeiions of theeutlironed Deity will impel its worship- 
per to the most odious crimes, and involve him iu inev- 
itable yet merited punishment." Let me beseech you, 
then, to be a man if you cannot be a Governor. It is 
terrible to sacrifice all which is left of the one in order 
to attain the other. Con.sideration of these truths will 
be of no little protit to you. 



13 



the eutrauco. " At least this lias been done. 
What good, what honest man — what true, 
what earnest patriot can support j'ou ? Ti uio, 
in its onward march, will soon respond to 
the inquiry. I trust, sir, it will be a response 
which will leave you in the merited seclusion 
of private life. Yours, &c., 

WESTMORELAND. 
Sept. 16, 18G3. 



THB GROUNDS UPON WUICU lUS I'HliOKY OF SE- 
CESSION RESTS EXAMINED. THE MISREPKE- 
SENTATI0N3 OF THE NORTH AS RESl'ECTS ; 
HER AHOLISHMENT OF SLAVERY, ETC., EX- 
POSED. HIS ABUSE OF NORTHERN CLERGY- 
MEN AND CHURCHES CORRECTED. . HIS 
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF SLAVERY RE- 
PUTrib, AND HIS ADVOCACY OF WHITE 

slavery established. 

Hon. George W. Woodward. 
Sir:— 

Up to this date I have established two gen- 
eral propositions. First, that you advocated 
in your speech of December, ISUO, the right 
of the South to dismember or destroy the 
Federal Union — to separate herself from it, 
and to form an independent Government ; 
SDd| second, that you maintained that, in 
order to suspend or restrain the full exercise 
of this right, it was indispensable that the 
National Constitution should be amended or 
changed so that it would directly sanction 
and uphold the institution of slavery, and 
suppress all discussion respecting it in the 
free States. 

It was to be expected that jou would at 
least have attempted to support positions so 
radical — so infamous — as these, by a rare ac- 
cumulation ot facts, and an unrivalled co- 
gency of argumentation. But instead of these, 
what did you present to jour hearers? Mis- 
representations of the motives and acts of 
the '' Fathers of the Republic," in the free 
States in the abolition of slavery — visionary 
speculations as to the value of cotton— tra- 
duction of Northern churches and preachers, 
and, finally, a puerile and sophistical defence 
of slavery in the United btates, in which 
you " came out " in favor of slavery without 
regard to races or color. Each of these in 
their order may be considered not in ertenso, 
but succinctly as possible. 

Let me proceed accordingly. 

(1.) As to the tirst. That you should mis- 
state the facts of history as regards the aboli- 
tion of slavery in the free States, and vilify 
the noble and pure men of the first age of 
our Government, ia not surprising. This is, 



indeed, one of the strongest proclivities — one 
of the most confirmed habits of your "school 
of politics." But you rashly ventured beyond 
most of your associates when yon allowed 
the following statement to glide from your 
pen, and drop from your lips, viz : " The 
Northern States abolished their slavery, and 
so gratified their innate love of freedom ; but 
they did it gradually, and so did not wound 
their love o/ gain. They sold out alavery to 
the Southland they received a full equivalent, 
not only in the inicc paid down, but in the 
manufacturing and commercial prosperity 
which grew up from the productions of slave 
labor." Considered in reference to either or 
all of the States involved, this statement is 
utterly devoid of truth. Its chief pariiculars 
may be examined. 

(a.) And as respects the allegation that 
the North abolished slavery "from love of 
gain, "Pennsylvania may he regarded as a 
representative of the other States. Did she 
"wipe out" slavery " from love of gain " — 
prompted by the demands of avarice ? Was 
this the motive that inspired and controlled 
her noble, pure, and revered legislators of 

irso? 

Fortunately, like the " worthies"' of the 
roll call of the pupil of Gamaliel, "though 
dead they speak " in the preamble of the Act 
of Ist of March of that year. 

In it, after affirming gratitude to 
God for deliverance from " that condition to 
which the arms and tyranny of Great Britain 
were exerted to reduce us," &c., they say: 
" Impressed with these ideas, we conceive 
that it is our duty — and we r' joice that it is 
in our power — to extend a portion of that 
freedom to others which hath been extended 
to us, and release from that state of thraldom 
to which we ourselves were tyrannically 
doomed, and from which we have now every 
prospect of being delivered. It is not for us 
to inquire why, in the creation of mankind, 
the inhabitants of the several parts of the 
earth were distinguished* by a diflerence in 
feature or complexion. It is sufficient to 
know that all are the work of an Almighty 
hand.^ V/e find," &c. * "•'' " We esteem 
it a peculiar blessing granted to us that we 
are enabled this day to add one more step to 
universal civilization, by removing as much 
as possible the sorrows of those who have 
lived in undeserved bonda;.'-e, and from which, 
by the assumed authority of the kings of 
Great Britain, no effectual legal relief could 
be obtained. Weaned by a lon^ course of 
experience from those narrow prejuoicea and 
partialities we had imbibed, we find our 
hearts enlarged with kindness and benevo 
lence toward men of all conditions and na- 



14 



tioiis; and we conceive ourselves at this par- 
ticular moment extraordinarily called upon, 
by the blessings which we have received, to 
manifest the sincerity of our profession, and 
to give a substantial proof of our gratitude." 

Sec. 2. " And whereas the condition of 
those persons who have heretofore been de- 
nominated negro and mulatto slaves has been 
attended with circumstances which not only 
deprived them of the common blessings that 
they were by nature entitled to, but has cast 
them into the deepest afflictions by an unnat- 
ural separation and sale of husband and wife 
from each other and from their children, an 
injury, ihe greatness of which can only be 
conceived by supposing that we were in the 
same uohappy case. In justice, therefore, 
to persons so unhappily circumstanced, and 
who, haviug no prospect before them 'whereon 
they may rest their sorrows and their hopes, 
have no reasonable inducement to render 
their services to society, which they otherwise 
might, and also in grateful commemoration 
of our own happy deliverance from that state 
of UDConditional submission to which we 
were doomed by the tyranny of Britain,'' — 
Be it enacted, etc. — (1 Smith's Laws, 193.) 

Now, in these words there is an utter ab- 
sence of any evidence of the sordid motive 
which you attributed to them. 

Instead of being governed by the " master 
passion" of gain, it appears that they were 
controlled by the purest emotions and prin- 
ciples of philanthrophy — " of kindness and 
benevolence, of justice and duty." " High," 
then, and " lifted up '" above your low and 
vile concepiions and aspersions, were the men 
of 1780; and who can doubt that if to-day 
their rayletis eyes could flash and their wasted 
tongues articulate, they would flash upon you 
the withering gaze of scorn, and articulate 
" into your ears " the tones of deep and burn- 
ing indigDatioii. 

J^evere, indeed, should be the execration 
that should fall upon you because of your de- 
liberate misrepresentation of their motives! 

(b.) But as regards the next particular ; 
the asseveration that the North received ' ' an 
equivalent," a price in band " for her libera- 
ted slaves." This was as false and base as 
the other particular. Prepared as you were 
to " traduce thef clime of your birth," you did 
not, because you could not, name one of all 
the Northern States which received a quid 
pro quo, a price for her slaves. 

As a complete refutation of this assertion, 
I will quote from " The Preliminary Report 
of the Eighth Census." On page 10 of that 
report Mr. Kennedy, an appointee of a " De- 
mocratic Administration," and, until after 
the inauguration of the rebellion, a 



correspondent of Jacob Thompson, a former 
Secretary of the Interior, but at the date «f 
the correspondence a prominent rebel, says: — 

"It may not be out of place to state that 
the American States, which in the past cen- 
tury abolished slavery, permitted the free 
colored population to enjoy every right con- 
sistent with their condition as a class, and 
allowed bond and free to remain during their 
natural lives in the State or colony where 
they lived. This fact, although sometimes 
questioned, can be demonstrated beyond ca- 
vil ;■ and the contrary can only be urged by 
such as are uvfamiliar with the subject or 
have an object in the misrepresentation. The 
plan of gradual emancipation probably tended 
to this result, as those who were living in 
bondage continued to be slaves, while their 
descendants were generally to become free at 
such period as they were qualified to main- 
tain their own existence by labor. "■ 

" An examination of the relative number 
at different successive periods, uatil slavery 
became extinct, must lead to conclusions 
that no material deportation of slaves occur- 
red shortly before or after the passage of 
emancipation acts — a fact which cannot be 
controverted ; and while it must be conceded 
that the Northern people prosecuted the slave 
trade at an early period with energy and 
thrift, they are entitled to the award of sin- 
cerity and honesty in giving the earliest ex- 
amples of the abolition of the institution of 
slavery within their own borders." 

This is clear. It convicts you of an egre- 
gious and malignant falsehood. "The slaves 
of the North were not handed ever to the 
South." Disseminated by ' ignorance on 
stilts," this falsehood would have been par- 
donable. But coming from your lips — a 
judge, a grave and imperious expounder of 
civil laws — a bold and restless aspirant for 
the occupancy of the Executive Chamber at 
Harrisburg, it admits of no excuse or pallia- 
tion. None can be conceived — noi^e sug- 
gested. 

(2.) But leaving this point, I must next 
refer to your statements as to the value and 
importance of cotton. 

There will be found to yield as little sup- 
port to your propositions as your prevarica- 
tions concerning the motives and conduct of 
the Northern States in " doing away with 
slavery." 

The most material parts of them will be 
found in this extract : " Cotton, the product 
of slave labor, has been one of the indispen- 
sable elements of all this our prosperity. More 
it must be an indispensable element of all 
our fiitur» prosperity. I say it must be. The 
world cannot and will not live without cot- 



15 



ton. There is not a matron in all the Union I 
that can clothe her family or herself without 1 
it. Nor can England do without our cotton ;" 
her mills and ours would rot ; her operatives 
and our operatives would starve if the negroes 
did not raise cotton. 

This is "a glowing picture," in fact, po- 
etical ; but at the same time wild and morbid 
exaggeration. 

Cotton is valuable. In connection with the 
saw — gin — the invention of Mr. Whitney, a 
native of " the land of brains " — Massachu- 
setts — it is a product of great importance. 

But it is not an " indispensable element" 
of National prosperity. 

It is far less so than the grains of the 
West and the coals and iron of the Keystone 
State. The brightest and most sublime pages 
of history contain no tracery of cotton. 

The reformation uuder Luther, Melantchon, 
Zwingle, Calvin, "the revival of learning" 
the establishment of the true doctrines of the 
rights of'men, all occurred prior to the era 
of cotton. 

The Barons at Runneymede, in their eon- 
test with King John for the privileges of 
Magna Cfaarta, derived no inspiration from it. 

Our imperishable Declaration of Indepen- 
dence was in no respect created by it ; nor 
is the perpetuity of its great truths in 
any degree dependent upon it. 

The deeds of valor performed by our Rev- 
olutionary Fathers' their pure morals and 
exalted principles, all proceeded the cultiva- 
tion of cotton in the country. It was but lit- 
tle known to them except as a garden plant 
until their heroic struggle had terminated. 
The mothers of that period clothed themselves 
without even the " Jenny of Hargrave or the 
drawing roller and revolving spindle of A.rk- 
wright ;" and if " any matron " of the Union 
could not now do so, it is beoause, like you, 
she is a degenerate descendant of a " noble 
ancestry." 

But they do not thus resemble you. They 
can be clad, if necessary, without cotton — 
and be the mothers of heroes, the trainers of 
saints, and the educators of minds — and live 
and act in all the purity, dignity, atid power 
of their sex, if the " mildew of God's wrath " 
should rest on all the cotton-fields of the Con- 
federacy. And if touched by the Goddess of 
Liberty, the chains of every slave should fall 
ofif, and they should joyously inhale the at- 
mosphere of freedom, or if every negro in all 
the South should ultimately " lay down the 
shovel and the hoe," our mills " need not, would 
not rot" — our operatives would not starve. 
England would not disappear from the map 
of the earth. For it has long since been 
demonstrated iheXfree or paid labor is supe- 



rior to coerced and unrewarded toil ; and not 
a few intellects superior to yours believe that 
white labor is superior to colored labor ; and 
if so, cotton will continue to be a product of 
commerce and of manufacture, and of use, if 
Anglo-Saxons alone existed to cultivate it. 
But if not — as the world lived long without 
it, evolved its heroic and golden ages with- 
out it — it could, and, if requisite, wsuld do so 
hereafter. 

Sir, it is a monstrous error, a huge blunder 
to affirm that cotton is an ^^indispensable 
element of our prosperity," and that the very 
existence of a large number of proud, culti- 
vated, industrious Caucassians of America is 
dependent upon the bone and sinew of 
Africa's despised sable " sons and daugh- 
ters !" 

^'Cotton is not King.-'' " The earth is the 
Lord's and the fulness thereof: " Despite 
the teachings of a material philosophy, and 
the sceptical and flimsy utterances of base 
partisaus, ' God is King,' and He exercises 
his supremacy through the power of truth, 
right, and justice, and therefore these must 
and will prevail." 

But I must not enlarge here. It has been 
well said " that evil always assails good," 
and that " black wounding calumny loves a 
shluing mark ;" and hence, after failing to 
sustain your dogmas and schemes by the 
perversion of historical facts and vapid de- 
clamatioa relative to cotton, you icdulged in 
unrestrained denunciation of '* preachers and 
churches." 

This you did by an inquiry, and by a broad 
affirmation. The inquiry was in these words, 
" What does that editor, or preacher know of 
the Union, and of the men who made it, who 
habitually reviles and misrepresents the 
Southern people, and excites the ignorant 
and the thoughtless in our midst to hate 
and persecute them." The affirmation was 
this : " according to some ecclesiastical coun- 
cils, it would seem that the great duty of the 
American Qltristian is to war with his neigh- 
bor's propertj/; and, if opportunity presents, 
to help steal and hide it" 

These, you may have regarded as poten- 
tial and pungent, •' sturdy blows in support 
of your base work." But neither of them rise 
above low and common ribaldry. Of the 
thousands of preachers in the North, you did 
uotpoini out one who was guilty of "bear- 
ing false witaess against the Southern peo- 
ple," or of inflaming the ignorant and incon- 
siderate with emotions of rancour against 
them, or of stirring them up to " persecute 
them." 

Nor did you designate any " ecclesiastical 
council " which had directly or indirectly, 



16 



taught that its adherents should assail their 
neighbor's proprety, or violate the injunction 
of " the great head of the church/'" "TJiori 
shall not steal.'' 

I go further. I afnrni that you did not 
possess the information requisite to enable 
you to do so — that you are not in possession 
of it now, and that you never will bd ! 

Harmless then — powerless as the tnutler- 
ings of delirium, is your unsupported detrac- 
tion of a class of men *' who have been re- 
cognized by even our most eminent jurists, 
as among the most valuable members wf civil 
society, not cnly in consequence of the purity 
of their lives, but also because of the salu- 
tary effects of their exalted, holy teachings." 

And with a peculiar propriety they can re- 
pel four fabrications by these expressive 
words : 

"If waara 
Traduced by ignorant tongues— which neither kaow 
Our faculties nor person, yet will be 
Toe chronicles of our duLag— let us say, 
'Tis but the fate of place, and the rough brake 
That virtue must go throaph." 

1 come at length to your final effort to sus- 
tain your infamous assumptions. 

In this you passed from material to moral 
considerations, and after no small amount of 
evasion, and evolutions, you presented -^n 
argument consisting of two parts in defence 
of " the peculiar institution," or of slavery 
in the United States. 

The first part was within the class of rea- 
soning deaomiuated "negative," the second 
was positive or direct. 

In the former you contended that "the 
negro slavery of America was not sinful, be- 
cause no lex scripta,'^ plainly written, could 
he produced against it. 

How supremely ridiculous is this ! Let m$ 
call your attention to a few relevant facts 
with which if, you are not, you should be 
familiar. America is not naaied in the Old 
or New Testament. It was not discovered 
until about fifteen centuries aftf;r these books 
were closed, and not until about two cen- 
turies subsequent to the discovery was slavery 
introduced into the Western Continent. 

And yet you ask for a direct, explicit con- 
demnation of it in the Bible ! For an express 
and positive law against an institution, or a 
specific status of society which had no ex- 
istence when the Bible was written. 

Truly, sir, 
Paitiriunt monies, mascictur ridimlus'mvK. 

But your demand, absurd as it was, shall 
not be entirely useless. Aside from the fact, 
that it evinnced how imperfectly you under 
stood "God's mode of communicating his 
will to man," or " the plan of the Holy Scrip- 
tures," it affords a proper occasion to impr.rt 



to you correct information, or to enlighten 
your igoorance on this important subject 
And this can be best and most authoritatively 
done by quoting the words of eminent divi- 
nes and moralists. Conspicuous among them 
is the distinguished Archbishop Whately, who 
says in his Essays, vol. 2, p. 263, London, 
1833 : " It was no part of the scheme of the 
Gospel Revelation to lay down any thing ap- 
proaching to a complete system of moral 
precepts, to enumerate everything that is en- 
joined or forbidden by our religion, nor again 
to give a detailed general description of 
Christian duty, or to delineate, after the man- 
ner of systematic ethical writers, each separate 
hahlt of virtue or vice. New and higher 
motives were implanted, a more exalted and 
perfect example was proposed for invitation, 
a loftier standard of morality was established 
and the Christian is left to apply for himself 
in each case, the principles of the Gospel." 

Perfectly in harmony with this are the 
views of the scarcely less distinguished 
Francis Wayland. He says : 

'• I think it must appear obvious to every 
reflecting mind, that this is the only method 
in which a universal revelation, which should 
possess any moral stringency, could have 
given, for all coming time." * * * 

A simple precept, or prohibition, is of all 
thing the easiest to be evaded. Lord Eldon 
used to say, " that no man in England could 
construct an act of Parliament through which 
he could not drive a coach and four." Be- 
sides, suppose the New Testament had been 
intended to give us a system of precepts, 
theca were but two courses which could have 
been adopted. The first would have been to 
forbid merely every wrong practice of that 
particular time ; the second to go forward 
into futurity and forbid every wrong practice 
that could ever afterwards arise. If the first 
mode had been adopted, every wrong practice 
that might in after ages arise would have 
been unprovided for, and of course unforbid- 
den. It the second had been adopted, the 
New Testament would have formed a library 
in itself more volumnious than the laws of the 
realm of Great Britain. Both of these 
courses would have been manifestly absurd. 

The only remaining scheme that could be 
devised, is to present the ffreat principles of 
moral duty, to reveal the great moral facts on 
which all ducy must rest, the unchangeable 
relations in which moral creatures stand to 
each other and to God, and without any pre- 
cept in each particular case, to Jeaye the 
course of conduct to be determined by the 
conscience of every individual acting in the 
presence of the All-seeing Deity. 



17 



(Letter to Rev. Richard Fuller, pp. 9G — 
97.) 

Now it has beeu chieMy by the application 
of these " great principles,"* etc., that those 
whom you denominate Abolitionists — the op- 
ponents of Southern slavery, have;maintained 
that it wns specijicalhj condemned. 

And in this, notwithstanding your asser- 
tions to the contrary, they have been sustained 
by the great body of "divines really wise and 
good in our midst,"' as well as the most ac- 
credited commentators. 

Not to go beyond the limits of Pennsylva- 
nia, nor far from the spot where your speech 
was read it will be sufficient to mention 
Barnes, Newton, Brooks, Moore, Boardman, 
Adams, Cooper, Eddy, Hatton, Morris, 
Coombs, and Bishop Potter. 

The former of these has published " An 
Inquiry into the Scriptural Views of Slavery." 
8 mo. pp. 384. Perry & McMillan, Philadel- 
phia, in which the entire system of slavery is 
shown to be in conflict with the letter, spirit, 
and principles of " God's word ;"' and with 
him, as appears from various sermons and 
essays, all the others agree. If you had re- 
futed the published views of these eminent 
divines and scholars, there would have been 
some propriety in your calling for proof of 
the sinfulness of slavery ; but when this had 
not been done, nor even fairly attempted, 
your demand was only the " trick of the dis- 
honest controversalist and of the bad politi- 
cian." 

But I will not amplify here. The .second 
part of your argument was positive. You 
thus exhibited it : " Whoever will study the 
Patriarchal and Levitical institutions will see 
the principle of human bondage and of pro- 
perty in man, divinely sarlctioned, if not di- 
vinely ordained and in all the sayings of our 
Saviour we hear no injunction for the sup- 
pression of a slavery which existed under his 



*See, aleo, Noavder'sCIiarch History, vol. 1. Beat- 
tie's Elements of Knapp's Theology, eto. 

^'Amons these principles are the unity of the haman 
race— the common duties and destiny of men, eto. 
If it had been the design to adduae specific passages 
of Scripture aeainst slavery it would not have been 
difficult. They are numerous, e g„ Qenesis i, 26, 29, 
Exodus xxi. 10, Deut. xxiii, 15, Romans xvii, 26, 
Col. iv, 1, 1 Tim.. 9, 10. The truth is, the Hebrew 
languaRo bad no sinfrle word to denote a slave. It 
had but one word— eicrf or abed to express all the 
relations of servitude. Abaci, the verb, means to 
labor to work. The noun abed means a laborer, a 
servant— not a slave. The same is true of the Qreek 
(loi'laa, a servant, and duleo, to serve. Taey denote 
finj Bott of Kervice or servant. Tho Qreek for slave 
is andrapod'jn ; but it is not used in the New leata- 
ment in the passages which the advocates of slavery, 
including Bishop Hopkins, are accustomed to quote 
snd to rely upon. So that the more critically the 
Scriptures are examined, the more unsupported does 
the assumption appear that they sanction slavery, 
or thejdea of property in man. 



eyes, while he delivered many maxims and 
principles, which, like the golden rule, enter 
right into and regulate the relation. So do 
the writings of Paul abound with the regula- 
tions of the relation, but not with injunctions 
for its suppression. If we go to the most ac- 
credited commentators, or consult divines 
really wise and good in our midst, or, what is 
better, study and search the Scriptures for 
ourselves, we shall fail to find a law which, 
fairly interpreted and applied, justifies any 
man in asserting, in or out of the pulpit, that 
the negro slavery of the United States is 
sinful." 

It will at once be seen that this is what is 
styled " analogical argumentation," and as 
Hedge says in his " Logic," p. 85, '' it is an 
unsafe ground of reasoning, — and its conclu- 
sions shoald seldom be received without some 
degree of distrust." Its force as is remarked 
by Mills, depends upon the closeness and 
number of the points of resemblance, and to 
give it any strength thene should be exact, and 
if possible numerous ; but as you pointed out 
" no particulars of similarity" between Patri- 
archal and Levitical" servitude, Roman 
slavery, and African bDndage in the United 
States, your conclusions are necessarily illo- 
gical and unsatisfactory — vox et preterm 
nihil." 

But I am not done with your positive argu- 
ment. I must present it in its moat serious 
aspect. 

And what was it ? Surprising as it may 
seem, it is this : 

Not that slavery in the United States — not 
that negro slavery is sanctioned by God ; hut 
human bondage without regard to time, locali- 
ties, races, or colors. 

Let no one, for a moment, be rash enough 
to dispute the correctness of this statement. 
For here are your words : " Whoever will 
study the Patriarchal and Levitical institu- 
tions will see the principle of human bond- 
age AND OV PROPERTY IN MAN DIVINELY 
SANCTIONED IK NOT DIVINELY OEDAINED. 

That the force, or character and tendency 
of this position may be more fully exhibited. 
I will produce the candid and perspicuous 
statement of it contained in " Sociology for 
the South, or the Failure of Free Society, by 
George Fitzhugh, Richmond, Va., 1851," and 
which has been repeatedly endorsed by " the 
leading prints" of the South. On pp. 94 — 98 
he says : 

" We deem this peculiar question of negro 
slavery of very little importance. The issue 
is made throughout the world on the general 
subject of slavery in the abstract," 

"Ham, a son of Noah, was condemned to 
slavery, and his posterity after him. We do 



18 



not adopt the theory that he was the ancestor 
of the negro race. 27ie Jewish slaves were 
not negroes, and to confine the justification 
of slavery to that race would be to weaken 
its scriptural authority, and to lose the whole 
weight of profane authority, for we read of 
no negro slavenj in ancient times.^' 

And he subsequently adds, p. 225, " Sla- 

very, black or white, is right and necessary. ^^ 

This, then, is the culmination of your ar- 

prument, as respects the servitude of the Old 

Testament. 

Nor can its result be difFerent,[conceded in 
connection with the slavery prevalent in the 
ages of Christ and His Apostles. 

For, as Dr. E. Thomson observes,* " that 
Slavery was also chiefly of whites, not of 
blacks." The same fact is presented in the 
I' New American Cyclopedia, article Slavery," 
in Blair on Slavery, and other works. 

It is, indeed, an historical truth, which no 
scholar will for a moment contradict. And 
hence the defence of negro slavery, which 
yon endeavored to deduce Jrom the New Tes- 
tament, terminates as that'which you derived 
from the Old Testament, in the justification 
of slavery, irrespective of the complexion of 
the skin, or other physiological distinctions. 
And this is your ultimate and true position. 
It would not be difficult to add more ; but 
it would be useless.* I might consider the 



• Article in Methodist Quarterly Review. 

• In fact, in view of your dogmatic asaertion that 
no condemnation of slavery could he found in the 
^crtpturea, I might have declined noticing in any 
form your argumentation. For as Home observes 
in his Introduction to the Study .of the Bible," 

It »8 onlju an unbiased mind that can attain the true 
ana genuine seme of Scripture." 



hauteur and intolerance, exhibited through 
out your speech, and show how you, 

Pi«™i,:v, 1 ■' Too eager in dispute, 
n«,!!3i* ,! ,^°<ia3 your matchless fury rose, 
i^amn d all for heretics who durst oppose." 

But enough has been written to convince 
many that in every important respect you 
are destitute of the qualifications which are 
necessary for the position for which you have 
been nominated by an unpatriotic faction, 
and which it appears you are exceedingly 
solicitous to attain. And most earnestly do 
I .hope that the people of Pennsylvania, 
forming correct judgments of your principles, 
sentiments, abilities, and purposes, rising in 
the power of incensed freemen, will rebuke 
your lofty aspirations, and leave you after 
the second Tuesday of October to exclaim, 
in nearly the exact words of Cardinal Wol- 
sey: 

" S?^®?®}}' * ^°^s farewell to all my greatness I 
i.his IS the state of man. To-day he puts forth 
ine tender leaves of hope, lo-morrow blossoms. 
And bears the blushing honors ihics upon him. 
ine third day comes a frost, a kiUing frost ; 
And when he thinks— good easy maa— full surely 
Mis greatness is a ripening, nips his root, 
And then he falls «s / do. 1 have ventured. 
Ltike little wanton boys that swim on bladders, 
ihis many summers in a sea of glory, 
^ut far beyond my depth. My high-blown pride 
At length broke under me, and how has left me, 
iy.^^^yaiid oidwith service, to the mercy 
Ot a rude stream, that must forever hide me. 

And when I faU, I feel like Lucifer, 
JNever to hope again 1" 



Yours, &o.. 



September 17, 1863. 



WESTMORELAND. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



013 709 278 5 



